Actually that never happened, it was a small group of Doctors who called for the ban after a rise in knife crime and they were ignored, thankfully. It was such a stupid idea but knife crime was 'in' at the time and no one had been stabbed for a week so the media ran with it.

My comment was tongue in cheek, but thank you for the validation. Americans are fairly disinterested in being burdened with personal responsibility, but it could always be worse . . . EUROPEAN UNION

"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

I have a couple of them. They're mostly made of wool, so they're kind of scratchy after a bit. Also, they can be challenging to roll correctly.

PS - I would just like to point out that Ahmad Shah Massoud (The Lion of Panjshir pictured above) was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002. That's right, an Islamist Mujahideen warlord who was a willing participant in opium and precious gem smuggling operations for years was nominated for the Peace Prize, mostly due to the fact that he was 1.) Tajik and therefore an enemy of the Taliban/Pashtuns and 2.) less of an extremist than other extremists. I realize this isn't particularly out of the ordinary for Nobel Prize nominees, but I hadn't read that Massoud had been nominated until recently, so I thought I'd share.

"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

Oh, come on, you know that, and it's not my point to discuss the if, and, as far as I understand, it created more than a little controversy back in 2001.

FYI, this is what is in my script (and on Wikipedia about the patriot act).
Executive authorities, at least as far I'm informed:

Don't need to consult any judiciary authority before they intercept or tape any form of electronic communication.

Can check your bank accounts without explanation or authorization by an judiciary authority.

Can search your accommodation without informing you.

But I am interested in your opinion on those controversies, nonetheless.:smile:

My opinion is that if you knew what those provisions of the Patriot Act were used for, or how they were used, you would most likely not care in the least about them, since they don't really infringe upon personal freedoms in any appreciable manner and really only exist to expedite paperwork needed to later get warrants for the investigation of TERRORIST activities, or to bring law in line with the limit of technology. But feel free to continue using code words when you call your pot dealer or whatever. That said, in case you're curious, here's a hint that could possibly assuage the fears of fellow liberty-minded citizens: Try to find the government definition of "collection" (in the context of "intelligence collection").

More importantly, the Patriot Act does not relate to the Second Amendment in any meaningful way. You're treading on thin ice, Rafael. Reread the Armory SOPs about inflammatory threads.

"No. Listen to me because I know what I'm talking about here." -- Hannibal

I get your point and simply disagree. You feel that the founders would oppose the ownership of certain modern-day weapons based on their ability to cause widespread destruction. I feel just as strongly that the founders would not oppose the ownership of any weapon a man can afford and find someone willing to sell, but would simply punish those who use the weapon inappropriately. Furthermore, I believe that the fact that every single one of the most deadly weapons of their time was allowed to be owned by private citizens. The founders were big believers in punishing acts not limiting ownership.

Taking this argument to its logical extreme: You and I get into a fight in the middle of Manhattan. You bring a hydrogen bomb, and I bring a device that blots out the sun for 100 years. Which one of us is up for parole first?

an untrained user will most often waste the majority of his ammunition and a trained user can do as much or more damage with a semi-auto weapon.

It is not about how many people you miss; It's about how many people you hit before you are stopped. Obviously 50 rounds of 9mm through a submachine gun is going to have a lower hit % than 50 rounds of the same through a Glock (assuming the shooter knows what he's doing). Still, if I'm in a mosh pit, and a guy is up on stage shooting into its center, I'd rather it was Massad Ayoob with a Glock 17 and 3 full clips, than some untrained idiot with an Uzi and a single 32 round magazine. Wouldn't you?

Therefore, there really is no logical reason to ban the ownership of a full-auto weapon. The same with high-capacity magazines. Someone willing to practice can learn to change a magazine in under a second.

Good. Let them. That's 1 second less they're shooting at me. And 1 second more I can shoot back.

If a person plans on going out and killing people he has plenty of time to practice and prepare. A homeowner attacked in the middle of the night does not.

Yes, yes. I've heard it (and thought it) all before. I used to work for the 2nd Amendment foundation in WA in the 90's.
I had my copy of Terror on Ruby Ridge, and my M.O.M. newsletters. In short, I used to be one of you. Now I'm back in the middle, but with a more nuanced position.

Wolverines, the wind of G-d is at your back!

Last edited by Matt Phillips; 3/12/2010 1:33pm at .

Now darkness comes; you don't know if the whales are coming. - Royce Gracie